There is an interesting trend unfolding on some corners of the left, as certain supporters of Barack Obama earnestly insist he doesn't have problems with white, working class voters, especially outside of Appalachia. This is a bit like a right-of-center observer trying to deny the current lack of enthusiasm in the GOP base or the troubled state of the Republican brand name. It doesn't ultimately lend much credibility to the commenters other arguments.
This is largely the point of Sound Politics commenter and Horses's Ass contributor thehim/Lee. I took the rare step of responding in the comments at that thread given that his analysis rests on the bulk of Barack Obama's high margin victories outside the South coming in caucus states while Hillary Clinton's have come in primary states. That's an apples to oranges comparison that is really infeasible given the distinctly different demographic composition and size (on comparative terms) of caucus attendees versus primary voters.
Aside from that point, however, defenders of Obama are really quite persistent that outside Appalachia things will be just ducky for him come November. A key point of this argument is that primary behavior is not necessarily indicative of general election behavior.
Fair point to a degree, BUT that's not really the issue. A fair number of white, working class Clinton voters will come home to Obama in November (though some won't and that total will be an interesting question in close state contests). The real issue is that given Obama's weakness in attracting white, working class primary voters in Democratic primaries, how will he fare drawing support from the broader universe of general election voters in that same demographic in key battleground states?
If the primaries are any indicator, he's going to have some challenges. And remember, many of these general election-only voters haven't tuned into the Presidential race with much seriousness yet so it's not as if polling them now is wildly instructive (just as polling 5-6 months out of the Republican primary contests wasn't very instructive given the degree to which voters still needed to learn about the candidates and their campaigns).
Thus, I gave some though to a data point that might lend some insight into this whole issue. This led me to examining the exit poll for the Democratic primary in Missouri, famous for its Presidential bellwether status. The Big Mo's primary was on Super Tuesday, well before the explosion of Jeremiah Wright and Obama's San Francisco-based opining on rural America. Furthermore, it was a narrow Obama victory.
Yes, it's certainly no guarantee of general election voting patterns, but it is an interesting indicator - outside of Appalachia and without factors that have hurt Obama in the past month. Key results:
- Among whites ages 60 & Older, comprising 25% of Democratic voters, Clinton won 67% to 28%.
- Among whites ages 45-59, comprising 22% of Democratic voters, Clinton won 58% to 40%.
- Among whites ages 30-44, comprising 20% of Democratic voters, Clinton won 54% to 43%.
- Among those with no college education (including all races), 36% of the Democratic primary electorate, Clinton won 53% to 44%.
- Among white Democrats, 52% of voters in question, Clinton won 62% to 35%.
- Among white men, 35% of Democratic primary voters, Clinton won 55% - 41%.
- In rural areas, composing 24% of the Democratic electorate, Clinton won 65% - 31%.
Other than that, Obama did great among working class, white voters...especially outside of urban areas.
So, no worries for the general election. Especially since Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and West Virginia confirmed Obama's man of the people bona fides...as no doubt will Kentucky.
It also makes one wonder what we would have seen happen in Michigan and Florida if those primaries had been actively contested.
Posted by Eric Earling at May 15, 2008 07:29 PM | Email ThisThat's true, but the question is, how do you explain this?
It finds that McCain beats both Hillary and Obama by an identical margin among working class (no college) white voters.Among these voters, McCain beats Obama 46%-39%.
And McCain beats Hillary 48%-41%.
The whole point here is that Obama does no worse than Hillary in November among white voters without a college education. You were wrong about this a month ago. You're wrong about today. And when you make an ass of yourself trying to respond to this comment, you'll be wrong again.
The reason you're wrong is because large numbers of working class whites (largely independents) would vote for Obama, but never for Hillary, cancelling out the trend that you think you're seeing from Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and Missouri. Are you done yet?
Posted by: thehim on May 15, 2008 07:23 PMI said it above, I've said it before: general election polls this far out are not terribly helpful (can you say President Dukakis?). That fact is even more true given that general election voters know very little about Obama. By chance, they might learn some more between now and then.
I'm perfectly prepared for the fact that McCain could lay an egg in the general and get whipped by Obama. Yet, you seem unwilling to embrace the fact Obama is equally vulnerable - even before he has to explain his liberal voting record and lack of bipartisan accomplishments. Neither fact will serve him well in validating himself as a post-partisan leader who can get things done.
If that happens, Obama's hoped-for advantage among independents will shrink - especially if McCain keeps pushing forward messages like he did today. But, if you want to keep insisting you're right then by my guest. It's a free Internet.
Posted by: Eric Earling on May 15, 2008 07:52 PMBoth Hillary and Obama can beat McCain in November. But they will actually win in very different places and among very different demographics. You're cherry picking data from places like West Virginia and Missouri, while ignoring data from places like Colorado and Wisconsin in order to make a point that doesn't hold up. Why are you doing this? I have no idea.
Posted by: thehim on May 15, 2008 07:59 PMNothing more amusing to watch than when Sexism and Hubris collide is there, sweetie?
Posted by: Rick D. on May 15, 2008 08:01 PMI've acknowledged his win in Wisconsin as an important and notable victory, even if it did come in the middle of a massive Clinton campaign team funk. But to which Colorado data are you referring?
It is certainly possible that Obama could turn that state Democratic given how purple it has become in recent cycles. But the only real measure we have in this cycle are caucus results, which are almost worthless in projecting general election outcomes.
Moreover, if you think picking data from Missouri - the swing state of all swing states - is cherry picking data then be my guest. I'd love to have some other relevant large states to look at outside of the Appalachian region, but alas, you guys didn't have real contests in Florida and Michigan. CA is Latino-heavy, NY and IL were home states, etc., etc.
P.S. It would be gentlemanly of you to acknowledge your significant Kansas blunder at your own site.
Posted by: Eric Earling on May 15, 2008 08:12 PMOh my, I can only imagine you're referring to this.
Eric, a helpful hint. Whenever McCain reminds people of President Bush, that's bad for him.
Posted by: thehim on May 15, 2008 08:19 PMDarryl has been doing some good number crunching at his site. You can see that Obama is doing considerably better in that state than Hillary.
P.S. It would be gentlemanly of you to acknowledge your significant Kansas blunder at your own site.
I will. I found a page that listed the results from Kansas as 'primary results'. Either way, winning with 75% of the vote is not just a result of the caucus attracting different types of people.
I think overall, you're not really grasping how different this year is electorally from years past. Obama has as good a chance to win a state like Georgia as he does Ohio. He brings a very different mix of people under the Democratic umbrella than before.
Posted by: thehim on May 15, 2008 08:48 PMNo, I wasn't actually and your penchant for leaping to conclusions and assumptions about what I'm saying is tiresome. I was talking about McCain's speech today and his discussion of working with Congress and across party lines.
Posted by: Eric Earling on May 15, 2008 08:49 PMI'm out for the weekend. Party on.
Posted by: thehim on May 15, 2008 08:56 PMBut remember when Huckabee had what COULD have been a cross in his ad? The democrats were foaming at the mouth.
Hypocrisy alert!
WWW.cbn.com/cbnnews/375230.aspx
Posted by: Michele on May 15, 2008 09:36 PMConsider those maps in conjunction with latest RealClearPolitics average national matchups between McCain - Obama and McCain - Hillary:
Obama currently leads McCain by 4.4 percent;
Hillary leads McCain by 3.2 percent.
And then remember that we do NOT elect a President by total national popular vote (and never will, because (thank goodness) the 13 smallest states can block amending the Constitution):
It's the Electoral College vote that counts.
And that's where Obama has real trouble.
Look at where the ''Obama green'' is clustered out west: AK, HI, WA, ID, WY, CO, ND, NE, KS.
What are Obama's prospects in November in those states ??... well:
Expect Obama would take HI, McCain starts as an underdog in WA; and Obama *might* (maybe) have a slim chance at CO.
But AK, ID, WY, ND, NE, and KS: Give me a break.
I grew up in ND and still visit, and the fact that state has 2 (D) US Senators right now is irrelevant; Conrad and Dorgan are kind of special cases. There is NO WAY ND is going for Obama in the fall; just his Wright-Ayers-Rezko-Farrakhan-McDermott associations would be enough. Add ''most liberal member of the US Senate'' and ''pull out of Iraq right away no matter what'', and ND and the rest of those states look like a done deal for McCain.
So while McCain may be slightly behind in the collective national polling matchups, his prospects in the EC look much better.
As addendum, add in (D) results in WV and (projecting next week) KY. As I believe Eric mentioned in recent post, no (D) has been elected Pres without WV since 1916.
All I can say is: Hang in there, Billary:
Right thru a big fight over re-do in FL and MI, and a knock-down drag-out credentials fight in Denver. Let the good times roll.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/14/navarrette/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
Clinton sounded less like George Washington and more like George Wallace. Imagine a presidential primary where, after more than 16 months, almost two dozen debates, hundreds of speeches, millions of dollars, and countless chicken dinners, the rationale for electing someone boils down to this: Vote for me. I'm white. I can win because other whites will vote for me.
Why, this could be the new affirmative action. Whatever happened to merit?
Clinton's message in West Virginia was smoother. "I'm winning Catholic voters and Hispanic voters," she told supporters, "and blue-collar workers and seniors, the kind of people that Sen. McCain will be fighting for in the general election."
Meanwhile, some white Americans are turning themselves inside out to come up with excuses for why they're not supporting Obama. It seems like just yesterday that these folks were arguing there is no racism in the immigration debate, and now they're insisting there is no racism in the presidential election.
Some want to know why it isn't racist when 70 percent of African-Americans vote for Obama but it is when 70 percent of whites vote against him.
The answer has to do with history. Over the decades, black Americans have had plenty of opportunities to vote for white people for president. And they have done so. But this is the first time that white Americans have a chance to vote for an African-American with a shot at the presidency. And what are they doing?
Many are responding quite well. Obama won the votes of many, to borrow a phrase, "hardworking white Americans," in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska and Wyoming. But, elsewhere, as Obama said in a recent interview, people may need to get their head around the concept of an African-American even seeking the presidency, let alone winning it.
That's understandable. There are places in this country where white Americans are still raised to think of black Americans as inferior. And then comes someone like Obama who has performed off the charts -- from Harvard Law School to the U.S. Senate and now, possibly, on to the White House. It's going to take some time to get used to all that, especially for people who never thought they'd see the day that an African-American would be elected president.
To sum up his commentary (as CNN calls it)you are a racist if you are white and do not vote for Sen. Obama. It is people like this guy from CNN that are part of the problem instead of being part of the solution.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on May 16, 2008 02:40 AMHope! Change! If you say it often enough, I suppose it hides the fact that there's nothing behind the face but ... more face.
Posted by: steve miller on May 16, 2008 05:05 AM***Red Herring alert***
Posted by: Rick D. on May 16, 2008 05:16 AMI think the best analysis that was done in late February (I believe), and that has held true, except for Appalachia region is the one that stated in States where there has not been a history of racial tensions due to small percentage of blacks in the population (like Wisconsin), Barack has done well. He has also done well in states where there are a significant minority of blacks in the population and thus do contribute to the vote totals (Southern States like the Carolina's).
Obama's current issue areas are: Appalachia (just look at the county maps and you will see the purple color follow Appalachia consistently) and with states where their has been racial tensions, but not enough black voters to overcome the racial concerns.
The real question for all isn't why isn't Obama reaching these voters, but why are these voters still, today, so fearful of a black man becoming president? My contention would be is the voting pattern has nothing to do with political position, but has everything to do with race. Let's say it was Michael Steele running, do you think he would win over a White Male Democrat in Appalachia? Let's call it as it is. The Appalachia region and the states where there are a nominal minority of blacks, but not enough to significantly effect overall vote totals, but enough to where there has been racial tensions, still, today, have an issue with race. Eric may want to gloss this over since we, here, do not live in a region like this, so he doesn't see it. It doesn't dismiss the fact.
The clearest indicator of this trend is the fact that 7% of WV democratic voters voted for a white male who was no longer running. This isn't a reflection on Obama, but a reflection on them and their views.
Posted by: tc on May 16, 2008 07:21 AMIf I were a super, I would sure want to start talking about Clinton as the nominee.
thehim can't seem to see the forest from the trees, or as the old fairy tale says, "the emperor has no clothes" and thehim refuses to acknowledge it.
Posted by: swatter on May 16, 2008 07:35 AMIT'S ABOUT ELECTABILITY !!!
It's time for everyone to face the truth. Barack Obama has no real chance of winning the national election in November at this time. His crushing defeat in Pennsylvania, and loss in Indiana and West Virginia makes that fact crystal clear. His best, and only real chance of winning in November is on a ticket with Hillary Clinton as her VP.
Sen. Obama has zero chance of winning against the republican attack machine, and their unlimited money, and resources without Hillary Clinton. Zero chance.
It is absolutely essential that the democrats take back the Whitehouse in November. America, and the American people are in a very desperate condition now. And the whole World has been doing all that they can to help keep us propped up.
Hillary Clinton say's that the heat, and decisions in the Whitehouse are much tougher than the ones on the campaign trail. But I think Sen. Obama faces a test of whether he has what it takes to be a commander and chief by facing the difficult facts, and the truth before him. And by doing what is best for the American people by dropping out of the race, and offering his whole hearted assistance to Hillary Clinton to help her take back the Whitehouse for the American people, and the World.
Sen. Obama is a great speaker. And I am confident he can explain to the American people the need, and wisdom of such a personal sacrifice for them. It should be clear to everyone by now that Hillary Clinton is fighting her heart out for the American people. She has known for a long time that Sen. Obama can not win this November. You have to remember that the Clinton's have won the Whitehouse twice before. They know what it takes.
If Sen. Obama fails his test of commander and chief we can only hope that Hillary Clinton can continue her heroic fight for the American people. And that she prevails. She will need all the continual support and help we can give her. She may fight like a superhuman. But she is only human.
Don't be fooled by the pledged delegate, and math arguments. Neither candidate has the necessary pledged delegates. The entire delegates counts, and votes from Florida, and Michigan are not even being counted. Plus the democratic caucuses, and primarys have been heavily corrupted by fraud, and vote cheating. The only relevant question now is who can best WIN IN NOVEMBER and take back the Whitehouse for the American people. And the answer is HILLARY CLINTON. Everyone knows that now.
Sincerely
Jacksmith... Working Class :-)
p.s. Cynthia Ruccia - I'm with ya baby. All the way. "Clinton Supporters Count Too."
Posted by: jacksmith on May 16, 2008 07:42 AMWhich would explain why Obama is receiving 90% of the vote from 13.4% of the U.S. population which happen to be the African American contingent.
Talk about "Glossing over" a glaring fact.
Posted by: Rick D. on May 16, 2008 07:54 AMOh really? Maybe you should meet some American voters.
"Muslim" is the new codeword for "Black".
Might also explain why Hillary is receiving 60% of Women nationwide, and even higher numbers once you start increasing the age range. Women who are McCain's age range vote Hillary over Obama by a 10 to 1 margin.
Are they anything like the American Voters @7 whose concerns were ignored by Mr. Obama?
Ewww, you waded in to the sewer.
On the plus side, you probably gave the guy who thinks he's a rabbit another 500 reasons to comment which helps Goldy keep his traffic up.
Obama's presidential hopes ended as soon as people figured out that he's the opposite of the post racial candidate. Obama is now effectively connected with statements like that of Kayne West's infamous "George Bush hates black people." Obama could not help but affiliate with those who want race and class wars to continue. So now he reaps what he sows. It's that simple. I guarantee there are a lot more voters out there who are sick of the angry black culture and its acceptance and grooming by the left. Those voters won't be heard from at all until they cast their votes for McCain in November.
Too bad the left jettisoned Hillary. We tried to tell them all along that the Clintons were snakes. They denied that as well. Now they finally want to throw the the Clinton off at the nearest stop, right when Hillary was probably their best hope.
Posted by: Jeff B. on May 16, 2008 02:33 PMOn the other hand, I wouldn't vote for Hilary for dog catcher; she's worse than Obama.
BTW, Obama is not a Negro, he is correctly called a mulatto, having had one white parent and one black parent. Maybe that's why some of the Negroes don't vote for him either, since he's more white elitist due to his education & background.
Obama is trying to have it both ways & consequently, when it comes time to vote in November, he's going to lose much of the white middle-class vote.
Posted by: Clean House on May 16, 2008 06:29 PMWhat is important is that he is a "neo-Marxist" with a philosophy that is dangerous to our American way of life and in no way represents what the founding fathers envisioned for this country.
on a side note- use of the term "negro" is better left in the 20th century lexicon.
Welcome to the 21st century...
Posted by: Rick D. on May 17, 2008 11:35 AM